Something seems a little bit fake about the foreground. Surely the water wouldn't look that smooth with only a 1.6 second exposure? Gorgeous sky though, watching Gold Coast sunrises is one of my favourite things to do.
I realise it's still water, but I didn't expect it to be that glassy still - would have thought there would be a few ripples at least. There are also strong reflections on other parts of the rocks (which I assume are smaller puddles of water) that also have a look about them as if they were painted on after the event. It's most likely a consequence of the image compression (and therefore loss in quality) that you get when uploading onto the web; and also possibly some pretty zealous use of the saturation slider.
Maybe I'm taking you out of context; but from my end it certainly seems like you're taking me WAY out of context. I'm not trying "go off half-cocked" or spout incorrect facts. I'm not suggesting that you did any digital painting either; and even if I was, I definitely wouldn't be posing it as an affront.
So let's have another try at this conversation.
In my first post, I said the foreground SEEMS a little fake. (Notice I said "seems" not "is"). I then followed up that vague, non-incriminating statement with a question. Finally, I finished my comment by saying that I think the sky is gorgeous, and expressed my general love for Gold Coast sunrises.
The unfortunate thing about written communication such as internet and SMS is that we lose tone-of-voice, so miscommunications are far more frequent. Few people have the level of patience required to use perfectly eloquent language, punctuation, and frequent use of italics to add emphasis onto the correct words. With that in mind, I read your first comment as being quite snide and indignant. You've used definite accusations of me "going off half-cocked" and saying incorrect facts, in response to my indefinite and vague observations, which I never tried to present as facts.
In reply to your comment (which may or may not have been intended in an ungraceful manner; but I certainly interpreted as such), I responded, once againm, with non-specific, vague thoughts as to why the foreground is of what is in my opinion a lesser quality than the rest of the image. I used such words as "expect", "would have thought", "assume", "have a look about them", "most likely" and "possibly.
You've then replied with an obviously sarcasm-laden attempt at an insult: "You are obviously a master of PS". You seemed to read my comment as an accusation or insult; which is a shame, because that's far from what I meant. I was merely trying to offer a very mild criticism on an otherwise excellent photo. I even offered a suggestion as to why I think the foreground looks like it does. But I was certainly not trying to put forth the image of being a "master of PS", because I'm not.
Anyway, enough of all this bullshit. I think you're a pretty good photographer. I watch you, and have probably half of your gallery in my faves, and have made positive comments on a fair few of them. I don't know if you're just in a bad mood or what, so let's just forget this conversation ever happened. Keep uploading good stuff, I'll keep faving it.
You are an articulate and educated young gentleman. You have the ability the understand logic present a case.
I will always take offence to "anyone" who questions the origionality of any of my my works. I have never hidden behind the walls of secrecy and always disclosed how an image was made. Whether HDR, merges etc,.
Wow... Just read my last post. I really should proof read if I'm going to offer a lecture on the intricacies of the English language.
That aside, glad we cleared that up. It's amazing how much things change when we both take the time to make a measured response. I can understand now that I should not have mentioned the process when it was the result I really intended to question. Lesson learned.